“7. With reference to paragraph 6: it is true that, the Defendant No.2, has executed Power of Attorney dated 2.9.2021. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said Power of Attorney, when produced. I say that, in the month of September, 2021, I was unavailable to act, as the Constituted Attorney of the Defendant No.2 on account of my personal commitments. The defendant No.2 was required to challenge the order dated 25.8.2021 passed on Application Exhibit 259, by filing Revision Application, before the Hon’ble Appellate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. Since the said Revision Application was to be filed, expeditiously, and as I was not available, and the defendant no.2 was not able to personally attend to the filing of the said application, he executed Power of Attorney, in favour of Mr. Taizun Nisar Hassonjee, with identical powers as to have been conferred upon me, under the earlier Power of Attorney, Interpretation of paragraph No.1 of the said Power of Attorney, dated 2.9.2021, which is reproduced in paragraph No.6 of the Application is a complete sinister, false, misleading and misconceived, interpretations of power. The Plaintiffs are well aware that, the Defendant No.2 has to regularly stay at Delhi and is not able to come to Mumbai frequently. It is, therefore, necessary to permit his respective Constituted Attorneys, including myself to have physical possession of the suit premises and we have the keys of the suit premises, not as a matter of right but, for the protection and safeguarding of the suit premises. The said Constituted Attorneys are not claiming any rights whatsoever in respect of the suit premises and are holding the suit premises, for and on behalf of the Defendant No.2 as his agents, only for the purpose of protecting the suit premises.”
